Josiah Rand

Cady

Internship Paper

May 11, 2016

Changes in Local and Federal security and the Patriot Act since 9/11

On September 11, 2001, the world was shocked when they turned on their television and

saw two planes crash into the Twin Towers in New York City, New York. What followed was,

simply put, Chaos; panic, fear, confusion, and anger. Shortly after, our president at the time,

George W. Bush, proposed a policy to congress that would redefine our country’s future with

security measures, counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism. The Policy proposed was called

the USA Patriot Act that would give us the means to protect our country from terrorist attacks.

On October 26, 2001, “The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1,

and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum”

(“What is the USA Patriot Act”) I believe, that if not for this policy, our nation would not be in

the position that it is today with our security measures and intelligence programs that have

prevented more devastating terrorist attacks as the one on 9/11. Because of this program, our

military and government programs have advanced the fields of intelligence and security

implementation. Much of the public has a split view on this policy surprisingly enough. There

are those that say that too much liberty and leeway has been given to the government through

this act. In contrast, there are those that support this policy because of what it has provided in the

security and preservation of this country. However, there is room for reform and amending this

act due to the times and changes we have seen. However, in my opinion, this policy has my full

support and approval and I believe that in the future we will see more enhancements and

technological advancements because of it. Furthermore, the public’s view will change for the

better in light of seeing how useful it is nationally and internationally.

Before 9/11, the majority of Americans maintained that privacy was an important

right that they had. “78 percent of Americans believed they had a right to privacy while only 21

percent that it was significant but not required. To my surprise, only 1 percent believed it to be

not important” (Best, Krueger, Jeffrey. 2006). According to Best, et ae (2006) only 25% of

Americans felt as if their privacy was being invaded. These studies provide support for my

hypothesis that the percentage of Americans concerned with privacy were higher before we were

attacked on September 11th 2001. Best, et ae (2006) confirmed that since the Patriot Act was

implemented, the percentage of Americans concerned with their right to privacy has risen over

the years, even though the majority of citizens have not suffered privacy invasions from the

government. According to Best, et ae (2006) very few Americans were aware of a significant

loss of privacy after the government implemented new antiterrorist programs after September

11th. In addition, researchers have found that, even though government approval went up after

9/11, it declined soon after. An argument that could be made to counter the public’s view would

be that they willingly were consenting to government access due to their constant interactions

with electronic devices such as smartphones (Posnert, 2008).

The Patriot Act was actually an enhancement of another act created in 1987.

This act was called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Patriot Act was the

legal action that the US took after the attacks of September 11th. Whitaker’s (2007) study found

the following: “On 28 September 2001 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution

1373 calling on member states to become party to all relevant international conventions on

terrorism and to enact the necessary domestic legislation to enforce these agreements” (p. 1018).

Shortly after this resolution was adopted, the Patriot Act was implemented, which was created so

that government, local and national, agencies would have more power and resources to protect

our nation from acts of terror, foreign and domestic. This act was passed on October 26, 2001 by

congress with our Commander-in-Chief’s approval, George W. Bush. Once this bill was passed

it changed the course of the military and government that would impact our nation and the rest of

the world on a global scale. Through this act, the U.S was able to increase and improve our

intelligence programs on the ground and digitally. It expanded our government and our military

by creating more possibilities in the field of counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence, and security

implementations. Over the years, this act has effected everyone worldwide sooner or later. For

example, the American citizens have become divided in their views and opinions of law

enforcement because of the liberties and rights given to the police officers. There are those who

say that the police are being given too much freedom and ability in their duties. Due to “police

brutality” and the modern technology used in their investigations, people have become even

more hostile to police as a whole. In contrast, there are those who say that this is needed and the

police have every right to use the technology and freedoms they have been given due to this act.

In addition, this policy has effected both this nation and many other nations around the world,

specifically in the Middle East. It has made the world more aware of the war with the middle east

that started with the attack on 9\11. Furthermore, it has made other nations consider increasing

and improving their security and policies as well. According to Whitaker, “Since September

2001, according to reports submitted to the UN Counter Terrorism Committee (CTc) and other

sources,5 at least 33 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America have introduced specific anti-

terrorism legislation in their parliament” (p.1019). This has, in turn, affect the rest of the world

who are under attack by terrorist forces. America along with other nations have combined our

resources to help each other with this war on terror worldwide. There have been social costs as

well because of this act passing. For example, after the terrorist attack on 9/11, we as a nation,

were shocked and appalled at what happened and we were ready to exact revenge on the people

that committed this. According to Rackow, “an ABC-Washington Post poll taken the day after

September 11th found that two out of three Americans are willing to surrender civil liberties to

stop terrorism’ (2002). In addition, we were willing to sacrifice some of our constitutional rights

if it meant that it would help protect us from more terrorist attacks.

An aspect that should be focused on is the perception of the public’s opinion with the

security and technological advancements due to the Patriot Act. The 4th Amendment provides

protection from “unreasonable search and seizures” as well as a right to privacy which explicitly

states that “the right against undue government intrusion into fundamental personal issues and

decisions” (4th Amendment). The Patriot Act means “Uniting and Strengthening America by

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (Public Law

Pub.L.107–56). After the attacks of 9\11, “President George W. Bush assured a concerned

American public that ‘[o]ur nation has no greater mission than stopping the terrorists from

launching new and more deadly attack… ‘to protect the American people, we continue to take

extraordinary measures to defend the homeland’” (Elkon B. Yaeli, Trends: Preventing Terrorism,

2007, pp. 142-163). During 9/11, Americans had a high approval of government surveillance.

In addition, American approval of government surveillance started declining soon after. “An

ABC-Washington Post poll taken the day after September 11th found that two out of three

Americans are willing to surrender civil liberties to stop terrorism.” (Rackow, 2002).

I was curious to know what people thought of the security enhancements and how it

affected their privacy. I decided to interview and take some surveys and chose two specific

factors to focus on; education level and political affiliation. All together I was able to receive

one-hundred and thirty respondents. The questions that I proposed was “from what you know, do

you think government’s surveillance programs (i.e. via the internet, drones, wiretapping) violate

your civil liberties?”.

Level of Education

I focused on an individual’s level and how it correlates with the degree of their support

for government surveillance programs. For this graph, I looked at the many different education

levels and combined different ones together; Middle School or below, High School, Some

College and/or Associates, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, Doctorate’s and/or PHD, and

other professional degrees. What I discovered from my findings was that the most amount of

people that participated had an Associate’s degree (n=78, 56.93%). Whereas, the lowest degree

of support came from those with a Middle School education or lower (n=1, .73%).

Political Affiliation

When I created my cross-graphs I tried to find a different degree to make it more

simplified and more professional to look at. After much debate, I decided to combined the

following together; Middle School/Other and High School, Some College/Associate’s and

Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate/PHD, and decided to leave the other category alone. From

my findings I discovered that this improved my overall results. I found that there was a statistical

significance due to the fact that the p-value < .05, at .43. From this graph, I could confirm a

positive direction of association between the level of education and belief that government

surveillance does indeed violate a citizen’s civil rights. However, this was only between the

levels of Middle School and a Bachelor’s degree, surprisingly enough.

For my second factor, I focused on the individual’s political affiliation and how and how

it correlates with the degree of their support for government surveillance programs. I decided to

focus on the four main affiliations so it wouldn’t become too complex; Republican, Democrat,

Independent/Other, No affiliation. What I discovered from my findings was that the highest

amount of participants was democrats (n=50, 36%). Whereas, the lowest amount of participants

that I found were republicans (n=24, 18%).

After analyzing my findings and results for this cross-graph, I discovered that there was not a

statistical significance due to the fact that the p-value > .05 at .74. From this we can see that there

is no correlation between the two factors. From this it is show that there is no correlation

between political affiliation and support for government surveillance programs.

The U.S. Military and Government has been the most affected by the Patriot Act.

Because of this act, they have been given a surplus of resources at their fingertips. Through this

our military’s strength and technological advancements have expanded at a rapid pace. We have

gained an edge over our enemies because this has given an advantage to our troops on the

ground, in the air, and through the cyber network. The Department of Defense (DoD) has

recently created a system of secure network for tactical information distribution called the Public

Key Infrastructure (PKI), which supports the “distribution and identification of public encryption

keys, enabling users and systems to both securely exchange data over networks and verify the

identity of the other party” (Edwards, Keiser, 2015, p.13). “PKI addresses multiple security

concerns for tactical networks…authenticity, data integrity, nonrepudiation and confidentiality”

(p.13). The Navy has used the funds provided by the Patriot Act to help create defense systems

to protect our nation as well. Everyone has heard of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or in

layman’s terms, “Drones”. However, I doubt many, if any at all, have heard of Unmanned

Underwater Vehicles (UUV). These vehicles have the ability of “detecting and clearing

underwater mines to reconnaissance and mapping the ocean floors” (Peck, 15). In addition,

because of our funds, the navy has had the resources to upgrade their systems making these

UUV’s the capabilities of “quick strikes from underwater, anti-submarine warfare and cyber

warfare by accessing underwater communications links” (15). The army had taken advantage of

these benefits as well since its implementation. The largest development right now with the army

is a communications system called the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

Program. This has helped the army with an “on-the-move, non-line-of-sight communications

capability” (Rosenberg, 12). The army’s goal was to be able to communicate with its soldiers

without interference of its surroundings like hills and mountains. They tested this successfully

with “more than 4000 soldiers executing the full range of military operations over a geographic

area of 2,000 miles” (13). One of the most known companies which operates in experimental

hardware and software, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has taken

advantage of this policy as well. DARPA has begun funding company that has created a

processor that has the ability to adapt and learn. In layman’s terms, with the funding the military

has received from the Patriot Act, one of their divisions has been able to create a processor that is

essentially a brain. They tested it on a UAV that flew into a new room and from the chip sending

out signals throughout the room was able to learn the layout of the room and remember. “it is

possible to do learning literally on the fly, while under very strict size, weight, and power

constraints” (Hardy, 28).

These are just a few of the technological and security advancements that were created due

to the funds provided by the Patriot Act for the military and government. This act directly affects

our military and government, our allies, and our enemies. Because of the technology that has

been made available to us due to the funds received from this policy, we have changed the

meaning of war. We have indirectly affected the rest of the world from our increased military

strength and new technology. The main supporters for this policy are the military and

government. As you can see from the examples above, they both have greatly benefitted from it.

With all this being said, there is still room for improvement with this policy. Even though this

has greatly improved our nation’s security and protection all around the world, there are still

flaws that need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, even though the security changes domestically and federally have been

beneficial, the Patriot Act has created issues that have created problems all throughout the

country due to the amount of freedom it has created for government actions. One of the most

prevalent issues with the Patriot Act is that when it was written up and enacted, there were a lot

of flaws. For example, the policy was very vague on specific points that were not dealt with

properly until later on. According to Ladutke, “The terrorist attacks of September 2001 created

widespread fear of a global backlash against human rights and those who defend them. There has

been particular concern that governments around the world would follow the U.S. lead in passing

so-called antiterrorist laws that create vague definitions of crimes while increasing penalties and

stripping defendants of due-process protections” (137). Unfortunately, his concerns were correct

throughout the world because of the Patriot Act. International governments used the vagueness

of this policy to twist it and misinterpret it to justify their abusive acts in their countries.

Furthermore, “Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have repeatedly warned that changes in

U.S. domestic and foreign policy following September 11, 2001, have encouraged other

governments to commit human rights abuses. The secretary general of Amnesty International has

argued that, "when the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and

human rights, it grants a license to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity" (Kahn,

2006). In addition, because the Patriot Act has a very vague definition for terrorism, the

government has been given too much leeway in taking preventative actions to protect this nation.

In essence, due to the way they crafted this document, they are allowed to take certain liberties

when justifying their actions to increase this nation’s security against terrorism. For instance,

according to Caffentzis, due to the “extremely vague definition of terrorism, the USA Patriot Act

legalizes, for example, searches and seizures of people's homes and offices without their

knowledge, the wholesale surveillance of private citizens' library records and internet

communication, and the arrest and detention without hearing or trials of anyone deemed by the

President to be a terrorist” (603).

Another issue with this policy is that it made it easier to extract information by using

unconstitutional means. According to Eyink, “Each year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) secretly sends tens of thousands of national security letters (NSLs) to communication

providers and financial institutions requiring them to turn over customer records and

admonishing them not to reveal that anything happened… cords and admonishing them not to

reveal that anything happened. These letters have existed in one form or another since the 1980s,

but the Patriot Act expanded their reach, made them easier to obtain, and turned them into one of

the FBI's favorite investigative tools” (3). This is a clear violation of the constitution and the

rights is grants us through the amendments. The gag order violates the First Amendment in

forcing those mailed these letters not to talk about them and having to live a lie. And secondly,

these letters violate the Fourth Amendment as well by forcing companies and employers to give

explicit and confidential information about their clients to the government without legal

authorization or explanation.

The major critiques of this policy are government officials and informed citizens.

Because of the vagueness concerning the definition of terrorism, there has been a lot of

mistranslations and miscommunications throughout our government. Officials have discovered

this fault and are trying to fix it, but there is so much mud to get through related to merely the

domestic issues, it will be some time before this can be handled properly. As for informed

citizens, those that keep up with politics and law enforcement tactics have become less optimistic

of the future of our national security forces. Furthermore, many police departments have taken

unconstitutional liberties to justify overstepping their power that was extended to them from this

policy.

In conclusion, the Patriot Act was a desperate attempt to provide our nation with the

necessary funds and resources for national security. When Bush declared a “War on Terror”, he

did so without considering thoroughly the consequences in the scope of things. The Patriot Act

was hastily written up by those with the mindset of a distressed and distraught people. This was

considered a rough draft that should have been given more consideration and revising. However,

due to the circumstances at the time, it was required to be implemented as quickly as possible. It

has created leeway for the government to take questionable actions against its citizens and

prisoners of war. And, it has given dictatorship countries and governments the necessary push to

commit atrocious acts against their people. However, over the years this document has gone over

extreme scrutiny and revision. Mistakes have been discovered and fixed with amendments and

detailed readjustment. In my opinion, the benefits of this policy far outweigh the problems.

Because of this document, our military has become the strongest and most technically advanced

in the world since September 11th. Our military has the most advanced equipment and weapons

in the world and is constantly creating and expanding their fields. Our communication networks

and cybersecurity systems are unsurpassed. Our ground troops have the advantage over all our

enemies because of the experimental equipment and tech provided to them. Our surveillance

systems and technology is so complex and adaptable that we can be in constant contact with all

of our ground troops around the world, in the air, and in the sea, and in space as well. We have

even been experimenting with Artificial Intelligence (AI), that our nation’s future technology has

the possibility of become something read out of a science fiction novel. There are even advances

in the medical field that have made it possible for amputees to have their missing limbs healed

and fully functional by grafting robotic implants and equipment onto their person. Thanks to the

Patriot Act, the possibilities are endless in the world of government and military technology.

References

4th Amendment

Best, S. J., Krueger, B. S., & Ladewig, J. (2006). Trends: Privacy in the Information Age. The

Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(3), 375–401

Caffentzis, G. (2005). Academic Freedom & the Crisis of Neoliberalism: Some Cautions.

Review of African Political Economy, 32(106), 599–608.

Edwards, J. Keiser, E. (2015, December). A lock on tactical networks. C4ISR&Networks, DISA

and the challenge ahead, 13

Eyink, B. D. (2008). Constitutional Secrecy: Aligning National Security Letter Nondisclosure

Provisions with First Amendment Rights. Duke Law Journal, 58(3), 473–505.

Hardy, M. (2014, December). The learning UAV. C4ISR&Networks, T0he 25th AF and the new

ISR mission. 28

Highlights of the USA Patriot Act. (2016).

Kahn, Irene 2006 "A year in perspective: a glass half full." London: Amnesty International,

http: //www.amnesty.org.

Ladutke, L. M. (2008). Understanding Terrorism Charges against Protesters in the Context of

Salvadoran History. Latin American Perspectives, 35(6), 137–150.

Public Law Pub.L.107–56

Rackow, S. H. (2002). How the USA Patriot Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement upon

the Privacy of Americans in the Name of "Intelligence" Investigations. University of

Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 1651–1696

Rosenberg, Barry. (2013, September). The Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

Program. C4ISR&Networks, From WIN-T to iPads: The revolution in voice, video &

data. 12-13

Whitaker, B. E. (2007). Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the

Third World. Third World Quarterly, 28(5), 1017–1032

Yaeli Bloch-Elkon. (2007). Trends: Preventing Terrorism after the 9/11 Attacks. The Public

Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 142–163.